Posts by Paradigmnoia

Quote from IH Fanboy

I've never made any conclusions on where the fans might have been located--in fact, without any good evidence, I would not make such conclusions. Here is a post where I note there appears to be "equipment" behind the windows at issue. I don't know why you think fans away from the window results in no argument. What do you mean by that? All it takes is a few finned radiators in the wooden container and the cited fans to move the necessary heat out the window. 1MW worth of heat? Doubtful. But you don't need 1MW worth of heat generated (not even close) for the system to have a COP greater than 6.

However, if all the Plant needed was a 6 or better COP, then why cobble together a tale of a COP of 80 to 135, a BS Customer who can't even keep track of what he sends to himself and measures heat in his manufacturing plant with non-existent gauges and a comparison to how much power was needed in a process that never previously ocurred? So an error of > 10 to 20 times makes the required COP of > 6 any more believable?

Do I need to post an image of an apartment building with all the windows on one side mysteriously missing, (maybe even a video of the windows suddenly vanishing as the viewpoint changes), or can we just imagine that?

Why the silent fans and heat pouring out a window hole for a year and no visitor notices something out of place near the building entrance? How many times have visitors arrived at your home and remarked "How neat that all your windows are installed! Your door is not made of paper, although it sure looked like it from the road! Your house has no roaring fans and is not baking hot!"?

Alan Smith ,

A few blocks from where I worked many years a ago a mechanic died in a terrible fire caused by gasoline dripping onto a trouble light while changing out a gas tank. Witnesses saw the beginning of the accident. The bulb popped after a couple of drips, ignited the gasoline, and then the almost empty tank exploded as it fell, dumping out the rest of the gasoline. The immediate area was fully engulfed in flames, and no one could get close enough until it was too late for the mechanic.

Nothing was discussed about the conditions in the bathroom, or how clean was the kitchen area. Probably both places had additional 1MW reactors being stored in them.

The back door was also made of paper. It just looks like a normal door due to the view angles. If someone had an image of the edge of the door, it would be obvious it was made of paper. Alas, there was no discussion of the back door, nor of its construction. The walls were also made of feta cheese. The photos clearly show the correct texture. It was painted over on the lower half to prevent visitors from picking at it.

Except the people that took the window photo for the Smith report were actually there, in person. They were not easily fooled by that peculiar transparency effect sometimes exhibited by windows.

I am glad that Alain used the right way with sugar to wreck an engine.

Sugar in the gas tank is ineffective, although it might plug the fuel filter. It does not dissolve in gasoline.

Sugar dumped into the oil, however, is so abrasive the damage is rapid and severe. Dumped into the oil fill port in a valve cover of an overhead cam engine, the lobes on the cams can be ground nearly flat in half a hour. If the bearings survive that long.

LDM ,

Agreed that the Optris average T matching should do for the most part.

The bottom to top of fin T difference is typically 50 to 100 C , temperature dependent. The difference will have more influence at lower temperatures (roughly below 600 C) where convection has a higher portion of heat transfer.

@Mary Yugo ,

Don't forget the "Ottoman" being switched on two hours before the water was turned on.

LDM ,

The work on the view factor for the fins looks great.

How is the thermal gradient of the fins dealt with?

Quote from axil

I have seen the micrographs of the SEM's that reveal the LENR reaction in process and the transmutation and particle tracks that the fuel produces.

By particle tracks, are you referring to the dendrites?

Quote from Alan Smith

There is no such thing as bad publicity. If Rossi earned 1usc. for every post by Mary Yugo alone that mentioned E-Cat he could retire today.

I noticed on the first reading of the NR that the ECAT (or sometimes E-Cat) had become "eCat".

For whatever reason, Penon only did tests on 3 of the 4 Big Frankies. You can see the notes on which individual reactors within each Frankie were operating, and their current draw in the quarterly reports.

I am fighting the urge to say that IHF would say 8/5 full.

...dang

Quote from maryyugo

uh, no. It seems Rossi is LYING. Again and as usual. No reputable journalist would ever write a whoring piece like that newsrelease. Nor would a journalist use a pimping organization like those PR firms to print it!

When I first read that NR, after I stopped laughing, my first thought was that either Dewey or Sifferkol had written it. And then I laughed some more. Because either way it's still funny.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

That was a single prototype - not saleS of commercial unitS.

I never poisoned the well, I gave you and Eric another year or two to play with before you have to start backpedaling. (I think it will be 1 - 2 years before the automated factory is up & running.)

Your first sentence of your earlier comment, "I already knew you were one of those...", was the poisoning of the well part.

Rossi has been claiming 1MW plants being sold to the market since at least 2012. IH took him up on it.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I already knew you were one of those who can't be persuaded by any experiment. but confirm Rossi's forecast that only sales of commercial units will change your mind.

Nice job at Poisoning the Well...

Rossi has already made a commercial sale (IH), and the result was a catastrophe.

Rossi forecast that the customers would be his best promotion. The last customer (not including himself) was IH, and if their response was the best promotion, what might one consider to be ordinary, or the worst?

There will be no test. The QX has reached Sigma 5, and so is beyond testing. It is a Fact.

There will be a demonstration of the undeniable power of the QX, and probably some snacks.

Quote from Alan Smith

And modern thermocouple interfaces have a built in reference junction., which includes temperature compensation. For around the last 20 years at least.

And how does one monitor that little bit of electronic magic?

Nearly impossible.

Not that I think they are often unreliable.

Quote from Alan Smith

How often have you known a TC to drift upwards on it's way to failure?

I cannot remember a single instance where I have seen this happen, and in the interests of bad science I have killed scores of TC's. They always start under-recording temperatures when this happens. TC's generally fail because of containment loss, insulation breakdown or junction weld fracture. In every case this leads loss of TC output. The only exception I can conceive of might be where failure of a metallic containment which incorporates EM protection resulted in the TC picking up stray currents from its surroundings, However since we are only talking mV of temperature-related TC output normally, such an event generally leads to such whacky and inconsistent behaviour that a failure is readily apparent or even in the simplest modern data-logging systems the generation of an 'error' code.

'Tis a fine and logical suggestion you make, but one that I have never seen happen in the world outside my head..

As shown above, the thermocouple is very sensitive to the reference junction temperature or compensation. The error is easily and often upward. Worse is that the thermocouple will test out perfectly fine, because there is nothing actually wrong with it.

My thermocouples usually fail from green rot.

Two different types of thermocouple measuring the same area might be a good backstop against problems with reference junctions. The temperatures should diverge if the reference starts getting warm. The TC types should be selected to make the divergence obvious in the operating range of an experiment. Maybe comparing against ambient T might be OK, as well as being easier and cheaper.

The idea that thermocouple reference junction drift could be a culprit in Shanahan's CCS is disturbing. (Just putting that idea out there).

I think the tail of the plot posted by Jed looks really cool. The boiling point of water makes little difference. It is in a bucket at some point, not in a sealed container. Was there superheated steam flashing out of the bucket? I think that might have been a bit scarier than mildly boiling water, and probably not something to be left alone.

So which number seems more reasonable to you? 4 mV by voltmeter, or 100 C from boiling water (assuming that superheated steam was not exiting the bucket)? Or maybe we have some level of post-facto interpretations added to the anecdote to make the story a seem a little more solid? (Even if it is for the most part true in general terms, if not exact specifics).